MK Family Law

On February 11, 2021, in the unpublished opinion of Minkiewitz v. Becker , the Court of Appeal of California affirmed the return of a minor child to Mexico under the Hague Abduction Convention.   The parties are parents to a 7-year-old son, all are U.S. citizens, and were living on their boat docked in Marina del Rey, California.  In December 2016, the family set sail for Mexico, and by January 2017, the family had set up residency in Mexico, where they moored their boat. They enrolled their son in school, he was learning Spanish, but they continued to drive back to Los Angeles for his medical care, so they maintained insurance for cars registered in the United States. The parents acquired the necessary permits and visas to reside in Mexico indefinitely, and while the visas were only temporary, they continued to renew them, and the father applied for permanent residency.  The father had bank accounts in both countries, and the family enjoyed entertainment and socialization in Ensenada,

In February 2021, a committee appointed by the Dutch government to investigate intercountry adoptions issued a report that recommends suspending the same.   It states, " For too long, intercountry adoption has been viewed socially and politically as a laudable way to rescue children in need. In addition, it satisfied the desire for children among parents in the Netherlands. This prevailing view of “doing good” has prevented timely action against abuses. " "The committee defines ‘abuse’ as: acting, or failing to act, in a way contrary to applicable national and international laws and regulations, as well as acting, or failing to act, in a way which is formally not in conflict with applicable national and international laws and regulations but which, from an ethical viewpoint, is irresponsible. The committee encountered various abuses, from inaccurate documentation to child trafficking and baby farms." (p. 23) You may read an English version of the full report here . 

On January 7, 2021, in the case of Dubikovskyy v. Goun , the U.S. District Court for the WD of Missouri, denied Mr. Dubikovskyy's request to return his daughter to Switzerland.   Mr. Dubikovskyy (who is Ukrainian) and Ms. Goun (who is Russian) are permanent residents of Switzerland, where they resided with their daughter (age 12) in Lausanne, while Mr. Dubikovskyy commuted to Geneva for work.  MD, their daughter, had been born in California, and was a U.S. citizen, but had not lived in the United States since age 3.  In 2020, Ms. Goun accepted a teaching position in Missouri, and arranged to move with her new significant other (as the parties were still married), their child, and MD.  She told Mr. Dubikovskyy, who was sharing joint custody over MD under a Swiss court order, the day before she left in July 2020.  Litigation ensued, where Mr. Dubikovskyy obtained a subsequent Swiss custody order granting him custody, and a criminal arrest warrant for Ms. Goun's child abduction fr

On February 9, 2021, in the case of Lukic v. Elezovic , the U.S. District Court for the ED of NY ordered the minor child returned to Montenegro after both parties filed motions for summary judgment.  The court reviewed memorandums and affidavits, and issued its order granting the father's motion, and denying the mother's. The court concluded that Montenegro was the child's habitual residence.  The parents had a written custody order from a Montenegrin court that, on its face, appeared to give the father only access rights, but the Montenegrin Code provided for the father to retain rights to decide the child's residence jointly with the mother unless abrogated by court order, so the court concluded the father had a ne exeat right in the vein of Abbott v. Abbott .  The mother argued that the father signed a travel consent form for an "unlimited" amount of time, but looking at the father's subjective intent, the consent form was merely to authorize an unrest

On November 19, 2020, the US District Court for the M.D. of Georgia issued its opinion, denying Mr. Romero's request to return his two children to Chile .  In December 2017, Mr. Romero brought the parties' 2 children to Florida to see his mother, with the intention of remaining until March 2018.  Ms. Bahamonde alleged, however, that in January 2018, Mr. Romero advised her that he and the children would not be returning.  In February 2018, she moved to Florida, first living with Mr. Romero's mother, and then moving out on her own.  Eventually, both children began residing with Ms. Bahamonde.  The parties had an acrimonious relationship both in Chile and in Florida.  Ms. Bahamonde had filed several requests for protective orders, and a hearing was scheduled for September 20, 2018, then re-scheduled to December 13, 2018.  She ultimately dismissed the case, however, learning that Mr. Romero had returned, with both children's passports, to Chile on September 15, 2018.  Ms. B

On February 4, 2021, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals, in the unreported opinion of Chaudry v. Chaudry , affirmed that a mehr signed by the parties at the time of their marriage was not an enforceable contract.   The parties married in an Islamic marriage ceremony in 2004 in Virginia.  At the time, the parties signed a mehr .  After a tumultuous marriage, in 2018, the Wife filed a Complaint for Absolute Divorce.  The Husband countered.  At the conclusion of the trial, the court, among other things, ordered the Husband to pay the Wife a marital award in excess of $279,000.  The Husband contends that the trial judge should have enforced the provisions in the mehr , which he says would have required him to pay to his Wife the sum of $10,000 in lieu of equitably dividing their marital property.   The Maryland courts addressed the issue of a mehr in 2020 in the Nouri case .  The Nouri court elaborated on the basic understanding of a mehr .  Unfortunately, in the Chaudry case, while b

On January 26, 2021, Narkis Golan filed a Petition for  Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in her Hague Abduction case.  The U.S. District Court had concluded that there existed a grave risk of harm to return her child to Italy, but that there could be put in place certain undertakings that would ameliorate that grave risk.  The Second Circuit remanded for the District Court to look for enforceable  undertakings.  At the end of several appeals, the return order stands. Golan presents the question: whether a court is required to consider "ameliorative measures" that would facilitate the return of the child, despite the grave risk finding?  She argues that other circuits have not required a court to consider "ameliorative measures" once the court has found a grave risk of harm. Further, the text of the treaty includes no mention of "ameliorative measures."  For some context for the reader, Ms. Golan's Petition uses the words "ameliorative

The  American Bar Association's International Law Section  will host a free webinar on February 10th at 11 a.m. ET.  During this hour-and-a-half webinar, join  Melissa Kucinski of MK Family Law  and  James Netto of the International Family Law Group  as they take attendees through the top highlights in international family law in 2020 in the United States and Europe.   Registration can be found by  clicking here .